---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment David, Dale and all, My apologies for the delay in responding to this post. Just arrived back in Sydney from LA on Thursday. Our piano was uncrated for a private showing in LA, and is now on its way back to Sydney (the Australians haven't seen it yet). For those who are wondering, our 225 piano will be selling from piano No. 004 for US$49,000, plus transport costs and any applicable taxes and duties (Nos. 004 and 005, both 225 cm pianos as is 003 - are presently under construction and available). No. 003 will remain with us as a promotion and hire piano. Further information will be published on our website soon (perhaps within four weeks). I was a great pleasure to meet so many of you in Reno. Overall the convention was an overwhelming event for us. However we thoroughly enjoyed the occasion. Our thanks go to so many of you for your positive comments and enthusiasm for our piano and the new action. There has been considerable manufacturer interest in using our action under licence and I look forward to our future as a grand piano manufacturer. There is so much performance improvement in the modern piano yet to be discovered. At Reno, I was impressed with the MBA system on the Fazioli 278, and also the exhibition pianos from Bl=FCthner, Seiler and Sauter. Bl=FCthner appear to be one of the few manufacturers incorporating a modern approach to scaling, with a B27 first note on the long bridge of a 7'8" piano - congratulations Bl=FCthner. The Seiler was a very impressive instrument for a mid priced piano. It was encouraging to see that a few manufacturers remain committed to building quality into their product, as opposed to some others who spruke endlessly about quality which is sadly lacking. >. . . I have some questions about your action design. I have >copied the pianotech list as I am sure that those who did not have >the opportunity to see it will be interested. I could not attend >your class in Reno due to some conflicts so forgive me if you >covered this material there. No problem, there were so many excellent classes. Yes I did cover the materi= al. > 1. I assume that the layout is designed to put all the friction >points on the convergence lines. Indeed it is. > The most noticeable change therein is the capstan which angles >toward the front of the key rather than the back. But the most noticeable performance improvement comes about from the placement of the jack/knuckle contact, at a mean position which is on the line of centers. > Is the angle of the capstan set at the tangent to the arc scribed >by the movement of the key at that point Yes. > Is the idea that with the wippen heel set at 90 degrees to the >capstan that there is no sliding and thus reduced friction? It is slightly more efficient than the conventional setup and the friction is reduced. > It seems that this would also result in greater wippen speed since >there is no lateral movement allowing you to use a slightly longer >knuckle radius. The wippen speed is basically a function of the resultant ratio between the key and the wippen, which will be set according to the division of the length from the balance pin hole to the wippen flange center distance. In the case of our action, the wippen is rotating about 7% faster than normal, but the hammer speed will be determined by the overall hammer/key ratio (as it will for all other actions). > 2. What is the product of all the distance leverages and does it >correlate to a specific key dip/blow distance combination? Have you >found generally that there is a specific and absolute >correlation between total distance leverages? For example, TSDL =3D >6.5 correlates to 10mm dip and 45 mm blow, and for any deviation of >x a corresponding change in dip and blow of y must be made. This was all covered in the class. I won't try to cover it now but I will, perhaps in a future class. It is so much easier to deliver content at a white board verbally. This action is designed to operate with a key dip of 9.8 to 10.25 mm max. with a 45 mm blow distance. The overall hammer/key ratio was set at 6.0:1 on the Reno exhibition piano. We will decrease this at little when the piano arrives back. With our action, since the wippen heel cloth is aligned on the line of centers at half key dip, the capstan can be relocated to reset the hammer/key ratio, while the capstan/heel contact will remain on the line of centers. I'll keep you posted on developments. > 3. What is the friction range in the action that you had in Reno. It was surprisingly high at around 12 grams, when compared to figures typical for this action (I discovered why this was so when the piano arrived in LA). With a down-weight of 50 grams, the up-weight was just a little higher than 25 grams when tested in Reno (our action model, and No. 003 before it left Sydney, had an up-weight in excess of 35 grams). Typically, our action performs with a friction of between 5 and 7 grams. When preparing the piano in LA for viewing, I discovered that the once-highly-polished capstans had tarnished significantly during the flight from Sydney to the US, and the jack/roller surfaces were anything but smooth. When we uncrated the piano in Reno I noticed that the strings and fittings appeared to have been wet since leaving the workshop. The capstan condition made me realise that condensation in the aircraft during transit was the problem. After smoothing the jacks again, skimming over the rollers (and lubricating them with Bill Spurlock's amazing teflon powder) and polishing the capstans, the performance of the action returned to where it should have been. At least the action performed quite well in Reno considering the poor state of the friction surfaces. I didn't think it necessary to check the surfaces in Reno, since the piano was only assembled about two weeks before the convention, when all surfaces were checked prior to assembly. > 4. Your shank uses a 20mm knuckle to center pin radius. Was this >done primarily to reduce friction at the knuckle because of your >intention to use such a heavy hammer? No, the 20 mm knuckle distance, the revised wippen length of 75 mm (jack center to wippen center distance) and the reduced knuckle diameter of 9 mm combine to place the knuckle/jack contact on the line of centers at mid key-stroke (this is part of our patent claim). It's the combination of the three parameters together which achieves the geometry change. > 5. Just for fun. All things being equal, what happens if you >reorient a Steinway capstan toward the keyboard by 8-10 degrees, put >it on the line of convergence and spin a slanted heel around >backwards to put the two in line? It would slightly improve the geometry, but it would also be an infringement of our patent claim if the alteration were to be sold to an end user. > It was a pleasure meeting you. It's a beautiful piano you've >produced and I wish you the best of luck with your project. Thank you David, and thank you to the many others who have sent such positive emails. I feel honored to be the recipient of so much. However, 'The standard', to use a phrase, is yet to be set. I will publish my class handout on our website shortly. I'll let the list know when it up. Regards, Ron Overs -- ______________________________ Website: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ______________________________ ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/ef/f7/ae/bd/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC